Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking/archive/2016-2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Krishna's great escape bazaar art c. 1950's.jpg

[edit]

Unclear Indian public domain claim - artwork is not anonymous (it is signed), no evidence that the original artist is now dead. McGeddon (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Monkey selfie at Wikimania 2014

[edit]

Whilst US courts have determined that the so-called "monkey selfie" is in the public domain, this determination is untested in the UK courts, where the photographer resides and for all intents and purposes where the photograph was first published. It is my understanding that the photographer, who will be alerted to this deletion request, is still extremely unhappy not only at the Wikimedia Foundations appropriation of his photograph, and is likely still considering legal action in relation to it; quite possibly in the United Kingdom. Therefore, due to COM:PRP the files should be deleted on that basis.

Furthermore, the existence of these photos on Wikimedia Commons brings the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia UK, the people depicted and the entire movement into extreme disrepute. It doesn't help when the "spiritual leader" of the Wikimedia movement, Jimmy Wales, contributes to bringing the so-called movement into disrepute (https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/498228750912602112) archived here. NO-ONE will admit who was responsible for making available the #monkeyselfie at Wikimania 2014, where the photo was used in an obvious mocking way, given the media coverage around this photo at the time. The photographer is utterly disgusted in the way that the photograph was used at the Wikimedia UK-organised Wikimania in London.

When questions relating to the meta:DICKish way the #monkeyselfie was trotted out at Wikimania began being asked the photo quietly disappeared from the conference; if that isn't evidence of the arseholish way the photo was being used at Wikimania I don't know what is -- yet, the arseholish photos are still on this very project! That is not good.

The photographer has been vocal in relation to the misappropriation of his works by Wikimedia, and has had consequences on photographers willing to "work" with Wikimedia projects, and they will continue to have that effect into the future.

The time is now to remove these photos from the Commons.

124.148.244.99 10:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
When was INUSE ever a defence against copyright issues? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See the keep above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The matter of UK courts and possible jurisdiction is irrelevant to this matter and, I would very strongly argue, is not a reason to make any decision on these images. There is a long track history that it is the USA which provides the relevant jurisdiction and there should be no possibility created that any alternative is being considered as that could open a crack in the floodgates. Separately though it can be argued that some of these images were 'short-term'-ist and that there would be no great loss to Commons or the other WMedia projects were they to be deleted, though where they are either in use or related to WMedia/Mania history there is a clear case for retention. Declaring that one of those listed is my creation (File:Stroopwafelselfie.png) which I would argue comes under "parody" ruling so is fine to retain anyway. --AlisonW (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete per Túrelio's latest point. That notwithstanding, the glee at which people celebrated the comments of the US copyright office is/was in serious bad taste. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Questions 1. If someone changes their mind about the moral appropriateness of an image do they have to plead with Google for a "right to be forgotten", or just write a personal letter to Jimmy Wales? 2. Can we expect a new Category here for Category:Contested image deletions which employ the word "arseholish"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Keep all, except for the two close-ups with the stroopwaffels. These aren't (otherwise) monkey selfies, they're monkey selfie selfies and other images showing the use of the monkey selfie at Wikimania. As such, I consider that they have value in documenting that event's behaviour and also that the monkey selfie itself in such cases (except the stroopwaffels) is de minimis in such.
I agree strongly with Russavia's nomination of these for deletion and I too am disgusted with WP's behaviour and especially that at Wikimania. I would support the deletion of the monkey selfies themselves, but I see these meta-images as something different.
I would also ask (again) what the basis is for the oft-repeated claim that US courts "have decided" that these images are out of copyright. AFAIK, they have done no such thing. They have decided, as has the recent UK court, that the monkey cannot hold the copyright, which no-one outside PETA ever claimed anyway. They have not though made any judgement on whether David Slater the photographer could or could not hold the copyright. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, we didn't know it was Russavia (did we?) But if the UK court had decided the monkey could hold the copyright, would the monkey have to comment here for a "delete"? (And as for the stroopwaffels, did the monkeys really like them, or was that just a nascent marketing opportunity?) Martinevans123 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i am going to school on ipeditorwithnonose, for socking tactics. i see a trend of using precautionary as rationale to delete illegal nuclear power plant photos, and wikileak classified documents. now unhappy potential plaintiff with no precedent. i would not mind curating out assholery, but it requires a systematic effort. maybe you could get a consensus about the personality rights, unencyclopedic, and the porn as well. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds easy. Not sure I'd care to be called a "curator of assholery", though. Hope you have happy school days. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
take your pick "curator of assholery", or IAR'er who has periodic "rule" enforcement temper tamtrum. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Comment Lets say that the monkey independently pressed the shutter of a camera and that some time later someone found the camera. That someone examines the card in the camera and finds that there are images on it. Unable to find the presser of the shutter he downloads the images to a computer, selects from the images, and processes the images altering contrast, saturation, and other elements, and then presents the results as a "Monkey selfie". How is this different from someone that creates a collage from fallen leaves and pressed flowers, or indeed how does it differ from Found object or Appropriation art? John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    John lilburne, 173.85.203.166, I'd like to clarify that the argument for deletion is not that the images are copyright violations, the argument is that they are needlessly antagonistic. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In what ways is this different than Google Street View images, or wildlife pictures from National Geographic obtained by the use of trip wires/or lasers for the wildlife to trip their cameras? 173.85.203.166 02:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly that these aren't monkey selifes, they're the monkey selfie selfies taken at Wikimania. The monkey selfies themselves are a different category, and involve that complex question over copyright. We shouldn't confuse the two. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mattbuck, Andy Dingley: Thank you for clarifying. If I was eligible to vote, I would say keep, as evidence of the sadistic glee with which the Wikipedians at Wikimania mocked Mr Slater and his copyright claim. Keeping the files would make it easier for Mr Slater's attorneys to determine the malicious intent of the subjects of these images. 173.85.203.166 12:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment the difference between Found objects and google street view, is the US federal judges who appear adamant. they created the case law. no case law to support photographer.
i eagerly await the UK case, or he could choose the DMCA takedown which would get him an express ticket to US federal court, might want to choose former. you can cast aspersions on re-users, all you want, it does not go to the motive of uploader who can claim good faith reliance on US law. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And note that the US court only held that the monkey could not hold copyright - which is not the same as making a ruling specifically that it is in the "public domain". As far as Internet sources go, the EU position appears to hold that the human actually holds a valid copyright. The book in which the image was printed appears to be properly copyrighted per UK law, and thus presumptively worldwide by treaty (the UK is so treated under US copyright law). Collect (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment U.S. law says that a photograph taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant are "not copyrightable". This means that a monkey or elephant would be wasting their time in a U.S court, but then so would the human who bought the camera or paintbrush and then argued that they should be the copyright holder. Under current U.S. law there is no serious chance of a human gaining a copyright on this type of image, and then galloping off to sue WMF. The public domain licensing of File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg is correct and would have been changed long ago if it was likely to run into problems in the U.S. courts. The situation in the European courts is less clear.--Ianmacm (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" U.S. law says that a photograph taken by a monkey or a mural painted by an elephant are "not copyrightable"
No it doesn't. It says that monkeys, elephants (and others) can't hold copyright. That's not the same thing and is a weaker claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Copyright Office guidelines say that works by non human authors are "not copyrightable". This is for all intents and purposes the same as public domain. If I have got this wrong, then so has WMF and its lawyers who have looked at this issue carefully.--89.241.119.17 06:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The unsupported assumption in that comment, as I've developed more fully below, is contained within the word "by". Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely put, Brad. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The US Copyright Office (bless their cotton socks) is wrong. They just haven't thought about it enough. Rich Farmbrough, 20:19 24 January 2016 (GMT).

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Strong delete, at least as to the underlying image itself. Rationale:
It appears to be undisputed, because Mr. Slater disclosed it (if he had not no one would know), that the monkey pressed the button on the camera. It appears to be equally undisputed that the monkey did not make any creative or substantive decisions relating to the photograph. In particular, the monkey certainly did not (1) acquire a camera, (2) study photography and become a photographer, (3) decide to use the camera to take photographs of wildlife, (4) decide to bring the camera to a particular location on a particular date, (5) select a particular image or creature to be photographed, (6) set up, configure, or adjust any of the settings on the camera, (7) have any knowledge that if he pressed the button, the result would be a photograph, much less (8) have any knowledge that if he pressed the button, the result would be a photograph of himself, or even (9) know what a camera is, what a button is, or what a photograph is. It was Mr. Slater who did, or had, each of these things.
Under the circumstances, I have little difficulty in recognizing Mr. Slater as the intellectual parent of the photograph, at least to the extent of not wishing to see it used on-wiki without his consent, and indeed over his express objection. Historically, Commons in particular and Wikimedia projects in general have taken a fairly strict view of what constitutes potentially copyrighted material, which should not be used at all (on Commons) or must be used only in limited circumstances and with safeguards (on other wikis allowing fair use). At times, this strictness has resulted in unnecessary deletions, based on purely notional or theoretical copyright claims that were never realistically going to be pressed by any rightsholder in the real world. In that context of bending over backwards to honor borderline copyright claims, I think we should think long and hard before we insist on continuing to use a particular photograph over the express objection of an individual who, at a least, has a colorable and reasonable argument to be both the practical and the legal author and owner of the material.
(When the "monkey selfie" issue first arose, I perceived it as an interesting parlor-game or law-school-exam type question but doubted that its practical importance were worth the energy being spent debating it. My view shifted when I learned there was a real person involved, asserting a real claim.)
Although I happen to be a lawyer, I do not find it helpful to view this primarily as a legal question. It was always perfectly obvious that the PETA lawsuit seeking a declaration that the copyright belonged to the monkey was going nowhere. (The defendants' brief put it beautifully: "A monkey, an animal-rights organization and a primatologist walk into federal court to sue for infringement of the monkey’s claimed copyright" should be the setup for a comedy sketch, not the preliminary statement of a declaratory judgment action; and in the Ninth Circuit as elsewhere, "monkey see, monkey sue" is not good law.) That does not resolve the more serious question of whether the image, under US law or any other law, belongs to Mr. Slater or is in the public domain. I do, however, think it is clear that Mr. Slater can make at least a reasonable and defensible claim that the copyright is his, and that it should be his.
A "free content" project should not be in the business of perpetuating bizarre and unnecessary disputes over rights ownership with persons who either are the owners, or in good faith make a defensible claim that they are the owners, of copyrightable subject-matter. Now, to be sure, this principle can only be taken so far: there are times, such as in certain freedom of panorama disputes, or where attempts to recapture large categories of PD images ("reenclose the common"), or other types of overbroad IP claims would significantly decrease freedom of expression, that taking a stand will be justified. But such cases have been rare, and this certainly is not one of them. The factual scenario underlying this image is a bizarre one, unlikely to recur, certainly unlikely to recur with frequency. The loss of intellectual freedom that would be associated with our choosing to delete this image would be very slight.
I also think we need to give some, though perhaps not dispositive, weight to the possibility that Mr. Slater might actually litigate the ownership issue here. We are trained, at least on English Wikipedia where is where I draw my experience from, to disregard "legal threats," but that is partly because the vast majority of legal threats about wiki content are meritless on their face. (At least they are meritless as legal threats, under US law; sometimes they do have some merit in criticizing the content.) Here, no one can say with certainty what the outcome of a litigation relating to this image might be, in part because the facts are so unusual that there are no precedent cases.
If Mr. Slater were to submit a DMCA request in this case, the WMF would be put to the Hobson's choice of either preparing to litigate the ownership of the monkey image, arising from bizarre facts unlikely to recur, or bringing about its deletion as an inherently controversial Office action. I can't say what the Legal Department would do if that happened; but what I can say is that it would be a questionable decision at best for the WMF, or anyone else associated with the movement, to expend either resources or goodwill on litigating such an issue. If we have to spend money and resources and goodwill to defend an important principle, then so be it: we have resources devoted to precisely that endeavor. But to defend the principle that "if a photographer sets up a shot but by happenstance an animal inadvertently presses a button, we will ignore the intellectual property claims of the photographer"? Not in my name, thank you very much.
I am also concerned by certain comments that have been made over time that have the air of, if not exactly bullying Mr. Slater, certainly overemphasizing to him his powerlessness to control the reuse of an image to which he reasonably believes he should have rights. Whether or not his approach to the situation might not be exactly the one I might have taken, I can certainly understand why he feels aggrieved. This too is not, in and of itself, a conventional deletion rationale; but it hardly makes the "keep" case any stronger.
For these reasons, I strongly favor deletion of the original image of the monkey as well as the derivative works making prominent foreground use of it. Satirical derivative works using it only in distant background present a somewhat closer question. Some of these might otherwise be defensible as depictions of things that happened at a particular Wikimedia conference at a particular moment, and yet the choice of this particular image, out of all the millions of images we have, as the one to propagate, raises questions of why. On balance, we can live without most if not all of them, and we should. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I have just noticed the odd fact that this nomination doesn't actually include the "monkey selfie" photograph itself and its immediate derivatives. I believe, however, that this discussion and the various comments on it are broad enough to encompass those images as well, as they are what is at the heart of the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good advice I was once given by a barrister was that, when preparing one's case, one should first ensure that it's actually your case for which you're preparing. If this was a DR on the monkey selfies themselves (which you might yet raise) then I'd agree with you. Yet it isn't - it's a different category. So do you favour deleting these too? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per my concluding comments. That the underlying image should be deleted is a key part of why the images based on it should also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd strongly agree with that for the commercially usable monkey selfies, per our seemingly abandoned "precautionary principle", I would still keep most of those in this category. Amongst other things, they document the peculiarly gloating attitude that Wikimania displayed and that is important enough to keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if the photographer did a DMCA it would not be a hobson's choice for WMF; it would delete with an office action with alacrity. but with the counter-DMCA it would be restored. nothing particularly troubling for the WMF. they do office actions all the time, i.e. [2] as you should be well aware. the litigation is by the uploader, not the WMF. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course right about the procedure, but it's not at all clear to me that the Office would, or should, restore the image in response to a counternotice, thus exposing the counternoticer to litigation and the WMF to continued bad publicity over an absurdity. Certainly I would counsel that such a hypothetical Office action should not be reversed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
well, here is a case where an office action was undone upon counterclaim [3]; maybe you should counsel them. litigation risk by uploader. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete It is clear to me that the photographer in question set up creatively the entire system, and that beyond any artifice in rationale to the contrary, he owns the copyright. That the photog is aggrieved, and we persist in wronging him, is indeed immoral. --Mareklug talk 00:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Martinevans123. Be objective "arseholish" is no reason for deletion. Anyway I don't agree this is "arseholish". I also don't recognize another serious reason to delete this images. In the name of Wikimedia and Jimbo. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 00:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, this debate has got very little to do with copyright law and a great deal to do with the ongoing feud between various people on Commons and Wikipedia. My two cents' worth on the Wikimania images is that most of them are not very good anyway. On the question of the copyright, the actual monkey selfies are licensed as public domain on Commons after careful consideration by WMF. U.S. Copyright Office guidelines say that works by non human authors are "not copyrightable". This is for all intents and purposes the same as public domain, unless the armchair lawyers want to debate this. "The Office will not register works produced by nature, animals or plants" (313.2). It is notable that the photographer David Slater has said that he will not be pursuing the matter in a U.S. court [4] because of the high probability that the case would go the same way as the San Francisco lawsuit. It is possible that the monkey selfie saga could end up like freedom of panorama, where U.S. law says this is OK and some European countries say that it is not. This would complicate matters, but it might still be possible to retain the image. There is little point in debating the copyright of the Wikimania images when they are obviously derivative works of File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg. If it is File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg that is causing the problem, hold the debate there instead.--Ianmacm (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we have the spectacle of NewYorkBrad agreeing with a banned user. a photographer periodically fulminates against commons, and we have a periodic drama-fest. the community has difficulty dealing with case law across multiple jurisdictions. there is no systemic way to curate or evaluate images, merely ad hoc bloviating. so it goes. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually know whether this discussion was opened by the suspected banned user or not. If it was, that might help explain some unhelpful aspects of how the issue was framed (and it would raise a host of ironies); but I don't follow your suggestion that it might in someway invalidate my input merely because I happen to agree with the outcome sought by that user. (If a banned user posts that the sun will rise tomorrow in the east, we might delete his posting (though it's too late for that now), but we would serve ourselves ill by moving the sunrise westward to spite him.) Your reference to multi-jurisdictional case law is more sensible, but ultimately is not the point because I perceive an ethical and a policy-based duty to delete or reduce these images and not merely a legal one. An "ad hoc" approach to any decision sounds bad, but actually is necessary by definition when unusual issues arise that are not the subject of express policy or precedent; as I point out above, "photographer sets up equipment but monkey accidentally presses the button" could be the canonical example of such a situation. As whether my admittedly lengthy comments above represent bloviation, or whether they are an organized and logical summary of the issue in a fashion not previously presented, chacun and all that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i've seen welcomes of banned users deleted, references mass deleted, and images "Kept: Banned user." [5]; i take it you think that should stop. the bloviation is the nomination without the slightest indication of policy; "intellectual parent of the photograph," = that is fine and reasonable and not policy, perhaps you could write down that policy so we could understand and follow it; the federal judges have consistently made the case law, are we going to follow it, or some other more complicated rule set ; the importance of ad hoc dispute "resolution" processes, means that there are no solved problems no precedents, we just live to fight another day; banned or not; "bizarre and unnecessary disputes" = lol, what wiki are you dreaming of?. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment We don't know that Russavia nominated the images for deletion, although some people have drawn this conclusion. The real problem is saying that the images are silly and tasteless, which is not grounds for deletion. If all of the silly and tasteless images on Commons were removed, it would be seriously depleted overnight. It is also a red herring to debate deletion of these images when it is the copyright of the actual monkey selfies that is causing the problem.--Ianmacm (talk) 07:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment In December 2014, the U.S. Copyright Office clarified its guidelines and listed "A photograph taken by a monkey" and "A mural painted by an elephant" as examples of works that are not copyrightable. The argument that it required a human to provide the camera or pots of paint is interesting, but not accepted by the U.S. Copyright Office. Anyway, this deletion debate was set off by the claim that the Wikimania images are "arseholish", which is not grounds for deletion. I'm not a great fan of any of the Wikimania images because they would be better suited to a Twitter or Facebook page than Commons. However, we should stick to the copyright issue rather than getting drawn into a debate over whether the behaviour of some of the attendees at Wikimania 2014 was a good idea.--Ianmacm (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment There are some people who think that the photos taken at Wikimania 2014 were not a good idea. I don't think that they are "needlessly abusive", but do think that they are not adding greatly to Commons and therefore have problems with COM:SCOPE, because they are not educational. "Here is a photo of me at Wikimania 2014 holding a picture of the monkey selfie" is not very educational, it is Twitter or Facebook stuff. If I had to nominate the images for deletion, this would be the rationale. When it comes to being arseholish, needlessly abusive and bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, Russavia is a world class performer (remember the Pricasso incident in 2013?)--Ianmacm (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They educated me that the Wikimedia project, as exemplified by Wikimania, does not have the interests of photographers at heart. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the constant assault against the content creators on this site is largely responsible for my lack of photographic contributions in the last year. Content creators get treated like a vile but necessary evil. Vile for insisting we actually have rights in the work we create. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you want to fix scope, that will require a long term photo curation process and culture change. if you want to fix the contempt for commercial photographers, it will require a long term collaboration project and culture change. without any prospect of long term change process, then nominations such as this one are merely rhetoric, unhinged from policy or ethics. deleting these photos will not fix scope or negative reputation. Slowking4♡Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, this whole nomination strikes me as a political one. I don't see how the deletion of these images would further our movement. The "untested in the UK courts" argument is largely a red herring as this does not mean that we can't use these images right now. Also, seeing the non-zero knowledge of Commons by the nominator, I believe that this nomination is bad-faith as this person most likely already have an account. Max Semenik (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second arbitrary break

[edit]

I am disappointed by the insensitivity shown by some of my fellow Wikimedians to what is, at least, a good-faith and defensible claim to copyright in, and moral and equitable rights to, the original photograph and hence, to some extent, in images derived from it. While it is true that the issues raised by the Wikimedia photographs are not identical to those raised by the original image, at least one issue is the same, which is whether we are willing to respect Mr. Slater's assertion that his effort and expertise led to the images, or whether we are content to rely on a technical, and at least debatable, interpretation of copyright office guidance coupled with a blatant misinterpretation of what the federal court ruling has said.

I feel compelled to quote here from one of legal memoranda that Mr. Slater's lawyer submitted in the federal case. I recognize that I am quoting an advocate's words rather than from a neutral source, but I find his points persuasive:

Snapping the shutter is something any human or monkey can do; setting up what became a world-famous, award-winning photograph is what professional nature photographer David Slater did.
As a non-human animal, [the monkey] is inherently incapable of setting up the photograph at-issue in this case. Slater set up what became the Monkey Selfie in the course of several grueling days in an Indonesian jungle. Developing a keen understanding of their subjects is a critical skill for any professional photographer, and it was vital here for Slater as he slowly built a trustful, friendly relationship with a group of crested macaque monkeys. Only a talented human photographer could have made the artistic choices involving camera lens width, positions and settings (e.g. predictive autofocus, motorwind, and flashgun.... [Slater] made the critical artistic decisions that resulted in a photographic work adored by millions worldwide.

I can imagine that someone else who found himself or herself in Mr. Slater's position might have chosen to go along and not make a fuss and be seen as a "good sport" about the whole thing, figuring that the unique circumstances were not going to repeat themselves, and that the attendant publicity might be positive both for the photographer's reputation and business as well as the cause of nature photography and protection of the wildlife that Mr. Slater adores. But it is not for me, as a stranger to Mr. Slater and to his life's work, to say that he made the wrong choice by reacting instead as he has. I realize that it may seem a harsh judgment but in my view, we dishonor the cause of free knowledge when, as the largest free-content set of websites in the world, we behave as we have in this matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not a lawyer, the December 2014 clarification of the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines means that it is unlikely that any claim for a photograph where a monkey pressed the shutter button would be copyrighted. This is why David Slater has said "I want to get them into court over here rather than in America."[6] This is still a confusing deletion request, because some people are arguing that the copyright is the problem, while others are arguing that it is "arseholish" behaviour at Wikimania 2014. File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg survived a deletion debate in February 2015, and WMF Office would have deleted the image if it was not happy about the legal status in the United States as it is well aware of all the hooha that the image is causing.--Ianmacm (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The issues surrounding the rights (equitable as well as legal) and the "in your face" behavior are both problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If WMF legal wanted to remove the image, that would be fine by me. I'm not so sure about removing it on the basis of U.S. law, which states clearly that images produced by monkeys playing with cameras and elephants playing with paintbrushes are not copyrightable. WMF legal would have to look at the issue again if David Slater took action in a UK or European court.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying we should remove the image(s) because we are legally required to. I am saying that we should remove the image(s) because it is the right thing to do. The potentially unclear legal situation is one reason I reach that conclusion, but by no means the most important one. As all of us know, there is no rule that Commons, or any other project, must host all content that we (arguably or allegedly) legally can. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Brad, you put it well. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW The copyright compendium states that the work must be made "by or under the authority of" a human. Note further that "computer generated music" has been held to be copyrightable - the key part is "under the authority of" and I suspect many people elide the fact that this wording does not exclude a nature photographer, for example, having valid copyright over images taken by animals who "trip" a camera release, for example. There are, in fact, huge numbers of such images with unquestioned copyright. Collect (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if this is ever going to be tested in a U.S. court because it is too risky. European law is more likely to look favourably on a claim of this kind.--Ianmacm (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The U.S. Copyright office was generally vague and concluded only that the monkey could not hold copyright. However, it ignored human artistic input and control such as venue. This is important as such things as live sporting events are copyrightable regardless of which creature or apparatus pushed "record." Venue, being controlled, even without scripting is copyrightable and the "my monkey recorded it so it's free" is not going to fly even in the U.S. The photographer rented and controlled the venue, similar to any live sporting event and the unanticipated results are still viable claims for copyright. Delete them all. --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These photos aren't the monkey selfies, they're photos taken by identifiable photographers at Wikimania. Your point might be valid for one group, but not for these - they're different photos. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are derivative works (which I believe shouldn't exist but the original has already been through the process). Keeping the derivatives is almost malicious as an "in your face" attempt at bullying and we shouldn't do it based both on jeopardy and decency. --DHeyward (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim that the precautionary principle demands that we delete any file that has been clearly ruled in the public domain by a US court because someone is "unhappy" and "considering legal action" is ... incorrect. That is not all all what COM:PCP is about. I'm reminded of the w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute which we have an article on. Interestingly enough that was also about of a UK legal threat, but then not just from one photographer, from the National Portrait Gallery of London; they also asserted a claim to public domain content. --GRuban (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    GRuban, we are not discussing a deletion of the monkey selfie itself, or anything about copyright. We are discussing deleting images of people being dicks with that picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 07:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you aren't, but the other deletion supporters are. Newyorkbrad certainly is, and the argument made by the nominator applies to it as well, and INeverCry is agreeing with both of them, and Collect isn't as clear as to his reasoning, but is certainly discussion copyright, and so forth... If the argument was that the images are outside our scope, I could buy that. However the argument for deletion being made is, "the photographer, who will be alerted to this deletion request, is still extremely unhappy not only at the Wikimedia Foundations appropriation of his photograph, and is likely still considering legal action in relation to it". That argument can not be the basis of our action. If this closes as delete based on this opening argument, I guarantee that will be used as a basis for the next step of deleting the original. --GRuban (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Being a dick" is highly subjective and not in itself grounds for deletion. COM:NOTCENSORED would apply provided that the image had some educational value. As I've previously argued, most of these images would be better suited to Twitter and Facebook than Commons. I would support relisting these images for deletion with COM:SCOPE as the rationale, rather than arguing about the copyright issue, which should be left to File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg, or the "it is dickish" argument which is hard to prove. I think that the people who uploaded these images were misguided rather than dickish.--Ianmacm (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I have to agree with User: Perhelion's statement that "objective "arseholish" is no reason for deletion. Anyway I don't agree this is "arseholish". I also don't recognize another serious reason to delete this images." I have to second his thoughts on this. If it does not violate copyright than the "dickishness" (a claim I reject by the way as being very POV/subjective) is irrelevant and therefore all the images should stay. Even if it is "dickish", which again is a subjective point of view I strongly disagree with, it is still (to eco Ianmacm above) in and of itself not grounds for deletion. I feel that whilst it is a great thing that the photographer in question, who by the way is not the author of the offending photograph, wants to work with Wikimedia however I feel efforts to remove the photograph are misguided and more counter productive than constructive. --Discott (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (most, per mattbuck) - this is a question of good citizenship. These images are not likely to be copyvios even if the original monkey selfie was (which in itself is dubious, though not for the reasons most give). The images have no compelling value, their existence is documented. There is a compelling reason to delete them. And for precedent we do delete a lot of images that are technically within scope, sometimes simply because the uploader has changed their mind. Rich Farmbrough, 20:31 24 January 2016 (GMT).
  •  Delete all images which are not used outside Commons. I fail to see how the images are 'realistically useful for an educational purpose'.
The images which are in use on other projects are automatically in scope per COM:INUSE. In 2013, Commons deleted a video recording because the video recording could be seen as harassment, but I don't see anything in the delinker log, so I assume that the file was unused at the point when it was deleted. One could maybe say that the uploaders are harassing the photographer whose camera was used for taking the monkey photograph.
This deletion discussion is not an appropriate place for discussing copyright issues concerning the monkey photograph. If the monkey photograph is thought to be unfree, then it is better to discuss that question in a deletion request for the monkey photograph, not in a deletion request for a photograph of the monkey photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep because the well has been poisoned by absurd claims of copyright: we shouldn't be giving the time of day to anyone who advocates for the completely unrecognised concept of copyright potentially being held by non-humans or held by a human for a work not created by a human or human-programmed machine. I'd be willing to consider voting the other way in a new nomination that's purely on the grounds of "this specific image isn't/these specific images aren't going to be useful for educational purposes" (the few I checked didn't seem to be particularly useful, although any images in use elsewhere are of course in scope), but there's no reason to delete any image I checked on any other grounds, and several of the delete voters have given rationales that need to be thoroughly ignored. Finally, I don't hugely see the SCOPE difference between this image and lots of others from the same event, e.g. File:LinaresChanSalsa.JPG. If other such images are open to deletion, I'm fine with these ones being deleted as well, but if a lot of people would say "don't delete, it's a photo from a WMF event" to a DR for any other Wikimania image, there's no reason to delete these on SCOPE grounds. Nyttend (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are advocating keeping File:LinaresChanSalsa.JPG, so presumably you're happy with the licensing of that image. Yet it claims to be both an image of AlejandroLinaresGarcia and also authored and licensed by AlejandroLinaresGarcia.
So how is it that he can be both subject and copyright holder of this image? Did he use a self-timer? An assistant? A passing macaque?
If it's OK for AlejandroLinaresGarcia to control copyright of an image where he clearly didn't press the shutter release himself, then why don't we extend the same power to David Slater? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regarding Slater's rights, this photo, like many wildlife photos over the last few decades, was taken when the photographer set up, and allowed the hummingbird to release the camera shutter by breaking an infrared beam. It's effectively the same situation as Slater setting up, and allowing the monkey to release the shutter on his camera by depressing the button. Slater has a prima facie right. He claims that right. Even if you think he will eventually lose a court case, I think you have to allow that he has a case to make, that there is some uncertainty regarding the rights and wrongs here.
Given that, and given that Slater asserts his rights in the monkey selfies, we should delete them until a court makes the issue clear, one way or the other. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep per Nyttend. Arguments relating to who owns the copyright (if at all) are moot; the issue has already been decided on the original monkey selfie deletion request. Stickee (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per User:Stickee et al. The issue has already been decided on the original monkey selfie deletion request. If this shall be contested, go ahead at the appropriate venue. No reason to discuss this separately for derivative works. --Krd 18:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS Many of the images could be considered out of project scope if they were not in use. One should consider to gain consensus to remove the images from the respective pages and renominate for scope afterwards. --Krd 18:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DIFC.jpg

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! Ras67 (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Krd 09:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clock tower, Deira.jpeg

[edit]

No Freedom of Panorama in the United Arab Emirates! Ras67 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. Krd 09:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Hugolesinge (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused {{Userpage image}}s.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Krd 09:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Skyscrapers in La Defense

[edit]

No FOP in France.

Thesupermat (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Opinions

[edit]

Deleted: Just as a single page of a copyrighted book has a copyright, so a part of a buidling has a copyright. There are limits, in both cases, of course, to how fine you can go, but these are all far above any such limit. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yuri na pausa.jpg

[edit]

unused personal image, out of project scope Krd 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yuri and mother .jpg

[edit]

unused personal image, out of project scope Krd 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/mobile_tracking/archive/2016-2&oldid=184468053"